login about faq

Since this is the main contention of Marx, that the workers are powerless and at the mercy of capital-holders, that even person's of merit never got the opportunity, and that those who gain capital by merit should not make it hard or impossible for others to do the same, and ultimately those that get the capital whether by merit or fortune, should not use their power to control others or make others dependent on them, but on the contrary they should create conditions in which those without capital whether meritorious or not can be free, and independent, and make choices. That is, the individuals with merit, fortune and wealth should not create virtual slaves out of the unfortunate or create conditions that control others and keep them down for exploitation, as mere cattle. Marx wanted to give dignity to the class of people that had no capital and that were exploited by those that do; to undo this injustice. Marx saw capitalism at it's worst and baser consequences.

I am not certain what he would say in reaction to Objectivism, but just as Rand is a critic of oppressive collectives, Marx is a critic of oppressive capitalism. Perhaps they hate the same thing: Oppression, but found it in different places.


Feel free to counter, critique and correct. I am not saying anything is absolutely true that I say, I cannot guarantee it, though I would not say anything I did not place some weight on. It subjective as all things that come through the senses and meet personality; that is not say there is no logical consideration, I do take note of logic, and objective truth I value. I value Reason.


Addendum

  • Marxists would not say Soviet Russia and the like were proper examples of what Marx had in mind. And that capitalism is a forerunner to socialism and that you can't progress to socialism without a highly productive capitalism. So, Marx might have promoted Objectivism as it is a step closer to socialism in his view.

asked Oct 07 '12 at 18:28

Adeikov's gravatar image

Adeikov
70333

edited Oct 07 '12 at 19:24

Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image

Greg Perkins ♦♦
1002425618


Under capitalism, all ownership of capital is by voluntary trade. When you hire someone, you set up an employment contract which says, effectively: "I provide you with tools, I pay you for producing something for me with those tools, and I get to do whatever I want (allowing for some stipulations) with what you produce, but the tools remain mine -- you can't take them home and work for a competitor with them, and you cannot sell the tools to someone else. The tools are mine, and the work you produce, for my money, on my tools is mine."

The capital is the tools. Wishing to own the tools doesn't make them yours, and neither does laboring, under contract, with the tools.

answered Oct 08 '12 at 09:26

John%20Paquette's gravatar image

John Paquette ♦
1002956310

I think the fruits of Marxism were quite clearly illustrated by the Soviet Union.

Given the abject poverty that was visited upon the participants of that experiment, the prosperity of the west served as a beacon of hope to those held captive within Marxism's grip.

answered Oct 07 '12 at 18:48

dream_weaver's gravatar image

dream_weaver ♦
663214

Why shouldn't the workers own the capital and make the decisions?

Well, the workers certainly can also be the owners -- and they should be the owners if they've earned it (it is not unusual for workers to also have ownership in their companies).

But the workers can't be the owners if, say, they merely steal it from the owners or otherwise simply assert ownership -- that would only make them thieves who are pretending to own something. Pretense doesn't change the facts.

answered Oct 07 '12 at 19:33

Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image

Greg Perkins ♦♦
1002425618

edited Oct 08 '12 at 02:04

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Share This Page:

Tags:

×161
×51
×1

Asked: Oct 07 '12 at 18:28

Seen: 787 times

Last updated: Oct 08 '12 at 09:26